Where did Satoshi Nakamoto ever compared Bitcoin to gold or digital gold?

[ytrezq]

I m confronted to someone who states that Satoshi Nakamoto never compared Bitcoin to gold in the monnetary sense (not about mining).
However, I m sure to recall a quote from Satoshi stating Bitcoin is digital gold which was used several years ago in the debate of Bitcoin vs Bitcoin cash as an argument that Bitcoin is a store of value and not a meant of payment.
I m failing to find it again. The only thing I found is about Bitcoin mining, but this isn t in the meaning I need to prove.

[bitmover]

Why do you need to prove anything to a bitcoin cash fan?

Satoshi disappeared in 2011 afaik, and he couldn't prevent the outcome of bitcoin as it is today. Neither would his prediction be worth anything now. Bitcoin is greater than satoshi.

However, this message in the bitcoin genesis is somehow a reference to the  monetary sense of gold

http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

As he is explicitly saying he is against monetary injections in the economy, this would be an indirect reference to gold monetary sense.

[ytrezq]

Why do you need to prove anything to a bitcoin cash fan?

Satoshi disappeared in 2011 afaik, and he couldn't prevent the outcome of bitcoin as it is today. Neither would his prediction be worth anything now. Bitcoin is greater than satoshi.

However, this message in the bitcoin genesis is somehow a reference to the  monetary sense of gold

http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

As he is explicitly saying he is against monetary injections in the economy, this would be an indirect reference to gold monetary sense.

Yes I thought about this message. But the guy in my language is likely to view it as the announcement of they money given to the rich which will be taken from the poor in later austherity plans. Not to goverment spending in general.
and thus that Bitcoin was never meant to compete against fiat. I remember reading it in the Bitcoin cash debate but it s for an other user case here.

[Fundamentals Of]

Why do you need to prove anything to a bitcoin cash fan?

Satoshi disappeared in 2011 afaik, and he couldn't prevent the outcome of bitcoin as it is today. Neither would his prediction be worth anything now. Bitcoin is greater than satoshi.

However, this message in the bitcoin genesis is somehow a reference to the  monetary sense of gold

http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

As he is explicitly saying he is against monetary injections in the economy, this would be an indirect reference to gold monetary sense.

Yes I thought about this message. But the guy in my language is likely to view it as the announcement of they money given to the rich which will be taken from the poor in later austherity plans. Not to goverment spending in general.

Lest you think this is Satoshi's own words, this message was just taken from The Time's headline on January 3, 2009.

I don't think Satoshi is against government spending per se. Satoshi is certainly against the government's failure to look after the people. Satoshi mentioned how the trust that people are giving to the government is abused. Thus, the largely trustless system in Bitcoin.

He must also have derided the government's ridiculous approach in spending, which is oftentimes directed to the rich and powerful banks and other private companies first, and the rest of what was very little left to be divided among the ordinary people, the vast majority of the population.

[kryptqnick]

I m confronted to someone who states that Satoshi Nakamoto never compared Bitcoin to gold in the monnetary sense (not about mining).
However, I m sure to recall a quote from Satoshi stating Bitcoin is digital gold which was used several years ago in the debate of Bitcoin vs Bitcoin cash as an argument that Bitcoin is a store of value and not a meant of payment.
I m failing to find it again. The only thing I found is about Bitcoin mining, but this isn t in the meaning I need to prove.

Since you're saying it was in a debate a few months ago and you've mentioned Bitcoin cash, you probably mean Craig Wright, not Satoshi Nakamoto. While some believe that Craig is Satoshi (and he claims this himself), he's widely considered to be a fraud, so please take that into account. But anyway, here's a link to Faketoshi saying something about Bitcoin being digital gold. Maybe he said it on other occasions as well, but there are some of his arguments here as well. As for Satoshi (for texts that we have strong reasons to believe were written by Satoshi), I don't think this person ever said anything like that, but I am not sure. You can try to go through Satoshi's forum posts to see if you can find anything.

[hatshepsut93]

Bitcoin's whitepaper is called "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". I think it's pretty clear what Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be. But Satoshi's word is not gospel, in a decentralized system users define what Bitcoin is, not the creator. This also means that digital gold vs digital cash debate is pointless, because it can be both and different people will use it differently. And arguing with Bcash supporters is especially pointless, they have their own shitcoin, they should focus on it instead of bringing up a 5 year old argument.

[DougM]

I m confronted to someone who states that Satoshi Nakamoto never compared Bitcoin to gold in the monnetary sense (not about mining).
However, I m sure to recall a quote from Satoshi stating Bitcoin is digital gold which was used several years ago in the debate of Bitcoin vs Bitcoin cash as an argument that Bitcoin is a store of value and not a meant of payment.
I m failing to find it again. The only thing I found is about Bitcoin mining, but this isn t in the meaning I need to prove.

Maybe this thread is what you were thinking about?   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583.0

The Money Regression and Emergence of Money from the Barter Economy
The entire purpose of the regression theorem was to help explain an apparent paradox of money: how does money have value as a medium of exchange if it is valued because it serves as a medium of exchange?  Menger and Mises helped break this apparent circularity by explaining the essential time component missing from the phrasing of the paradox.

As Rothbard explains in Man, Economy, and State (p 270),
"...a money price at the end of day X is determined by the marginal utilities of money and the good as they existed at the beginning of day X. But the marginal utility of money is based, as we have seen above, on a previously existing array of money prices. Money is demanded and considered useful because of its already existing money prices. Therefore, the price of a good on day X is determined by the marginal utility of the good on day X and the marginal utility of money on day X, which last in turn depends on the prices of goods on day X – 1. The economic analysis of money prices is therefore not circular. If prices today depend on the marginal utility of money today, the latter is dependent on money prices yesterday." [all emphasis added]

Rothbard then goes on to explain that in order for money to emerge from a barter economy, it must have a preexisting commodity value.  This commodity value arises from barter demand for the potential money in direct consumption (i.e. ornamentation).  This value seeds future estimations of the value of the money as a medium of exchange.  The natural market emergence of money is thus fully explained.

The Monetary Economy
However, once an economy has been monetized and a memory of price ratios for goods and services has been established, a money may lose its direct commodity value and still be used as a money (medium of indirect exchange).  Rothbard explains (p 275):
"On the other hand, it does not follow from this analysis that if an extant money were to lose its direct uses, it could no longer be used as money. Thus, if gold, after being established as money, were suddenly to lose its value in ornaments or industrial uses, it would not necessarily lose its character as a money. Once a medium of exchange has been established as a money, money prices continue to be set. If on day X gold loses its direct uses, there will still be previously existing money prices that had been established on day X – 1, and these prices form the basis for the marginal utility of gold on day X. Similarly, the money prices thereby determined on day X form the basis for the marginal utility of money on day X + 1. From X on, gold could be demanded for its exchange value alone, and not at all for its direct use. Therefore, while it is absolutely necessary that a money originate as a commodity with direct uses, it is not absolutely necessary that the direct uses continue after the money has been established."

This explains the history of fiat currencies.  They originally started off as simple names for weights of commodity money (silver) that developed out of the pre-monetary barter economy.  Despite later losing their ties to direct commodity value through state interference, paper currency retained status as money because of memory of previous money prices.  This factor is so strong that the relationship between gold and the USD, for example, is somewhat inverted.  Gold no longer circulates as a common medium of exchange.   Prices are set in USD, not in gold.  Most individuals wishing to trade in gold do so based on their knowledge of USD/gold price ratios.  ("Hey, let me buy that $100 couch from you in gold?"  "Ok, USD/gold is $1000/oz. Give me 1/10oz of gold.")  Legal tender laws, state taxation, and the entire financial regulatory environment maintain this inertia of USD prices and make it challenging to return to gold money directly, despite the destructive inflationary nature of fiat currencies.

satoshi's response:

As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose

and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel

If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.

Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange.  (I would definitely want some)  Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.

I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value.  But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.

(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)

[ytrezq]

I m confronted to someone who states that Satoshi Nakamoto never compared Bitcoin to gold in the monnetary sense (not about mining).
However, I m sure to recall a quote from Satoshi stating Bitcoin is digital gold which was used several years ago in the debate of Bitcoin vs Bitcoin cash as an argument that Bitcoin is a store of value and not a meant of payment.
I m failing to find it again. The only thing I found is about Bitcoin mining, but this isn t in the meaning I need to prove.

Maybe this thread is what you were thinking about?   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583.0

The Money Regression and Emergence of Money from the Barter Economy
The entire purpose of the regression theorem was to help explain an apparent paradox of money: how does money have value as a medium of exchange if it is valued because it serves as a medium of exchange?  Menger and Mises helped break this apparent circularity by explaining the essential time component missing from the phrasing of the paradox.

As Rothbard explains in Man, Economy, and State (p 270),
"...a money price at the end of day X is determined by the marginal utilities of money and the good as they existed at the beginning of day X. But the marginal utility of money is based, as we have seen above, on a previously existing array of money prices. Money is demanded and considered useful because of its already existing money prices. Therefore, the price of a good on day X is determined by the marginal utility of the good on day X and the marginal utility of money on day X, which last in turn depends on the prices of goods on day X – 1. The economic analysis of money prices is therefore not circular. If prices today depend on the marginal utility of money today, the latter is dependent on money prices yesterday." [all emphasis added]

Rothbard then goes on to explain that in order for money to emerge from a barter economy, it must have a preexisting commodity value.  This commodity value arises from barter demand for the potential money in direct consumption (i.e. ornamentation).  This value seeds future estimations of the value of the money as a medium of exchange.  The natural market emergence of money is thus fully explained.

The Monetary Economy
However, once an economy has been monetized and a memory of price ratios for goods and services has been established, a money may lose its direct commodity value and still be used as a money (medium of indirect exchange).  Rothbard explains (p 275):
"On the other hand, it does not follow from this analysis that if an extant money were to lose its direct uses, it could no longer be used as money. Thus, if gold, after being established as money, were suddenly to lose its value in ornaments or industrial uses, it would not necessarily lose its character as a money. Once a medium of exchange has been established as a money, money prices continue to be set. If on day X gold loses its direct uses, there will still be previously existing money prices that had been established on day X – 1, and these prices form the basis for the marginal utility of gold on day X. Similarly, the money prices thereby determined on day X form the basis for the marginal utility of money on day X + 1. From X on, gold could be demanded for its exchange value alone, and not at all for its direct use. Therefore, while it is absolutely necessary that a money originate as a commodity with direct uses, it is not absolutely necessary that the direct uses continue after the money has been established."

This explains the history of fiat currencies.  They originally started off as simple names for weights of commodity money (silver) that developed out of the pre-monetary barter economy.  Despite later losing their ties to direct commodity value through state interference, paper currency retained status as money because of memory of previous money prices.  This factor is so strong that the relationship between gold and the USD, for example, is somewhat inverted.  Gold no longer circulates as a common medium of exchange.   Prices are set in USD, not in gold.  Most individuals wishing to trade in gold do so based on their knowledge of USD/gold price ratios.  ("Hey, let me buy that $100 couch from you in gold?"  "Ok, USD/gold is $1000/oz. Give me 1/10oz of gold.")  Legal tender laws, state taxation, and the entire financial regulatory environment maintain this inertia of USD prices and make it challenging to return to gold money directly, despite the destructive inflationary nature of fiat currencies.

satoshi's response:

As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose

and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel

If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.

Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange.  (I would definitely want some)  Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.

I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value.  But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.

(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)

Not exactly what I want. Though in the same vein. I remember it was specifically with gold.

[JakobFugger]

Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock.

More like a collectible or commodity.

He didn't necessarily talk about gold, but commented on the potential to be a commodity or a collectible. That would be different from a company stock, for example.

[Harlot]

It's the same situation as gold and gold mining.  The marginal cost of gold mining tends to stay near the price of gold.  Gold mining is a waste, but that waste is far less than the utility of having gold available as a medium of exchange.

I think the case will be the same for Bitcoin.  The utility of the exchanges made possible by Bitcoin will far exceed the cost of electricity used.  Therefore, not having Bitcoin would be the net waste.

Well we have this post from the satoshi he made in the forum about Bitcoin mining being in the same sense as mining gold which you are correct but I haven't seen any kind of statements regarding Bitcoin being the same as gold in monetary sense. Since if you look at his statement you will see that satoshi himself doesn't see any much utility for gold in a form of medium of exchange which unlike Bitcoin being a digital currency and all has far more acceptance in various businesses, so I really doubt that Satoshi made a comparison way back then comparing Bitcoin to gold in a monetary kind of way.

[DougM]

Not exactly what I want. Though in the same vein. I remember it was specifically with gold.

  Sorry then Satoshi didn't say it...that is the only reference to gold he ever posted or emailed (that has been made available) outside of the mining reference.

[bitmover]

Lest you think this is Satoshi's own words, this message was just taken from The Time's headline on January 3, 2009.

This was satoshi nakamoto quoting the Time's healine when he launched bitcoin main net. It is an open criticism against government spending generating inflation and abusing people's lack of control over the monetary system

I don't think Satoshi is against government spending per se. Satoshi is certainly against the government's failure to look after the people.

This is wrong.
Satoshi was a cypher punk, and cypher punks are anarchists. Bitcoin is great blow to governments control over the monetary system.
Those concepts are inherently incompatible with socialism, welfare status, etc.

Socialism/wellfare bitcoiner is contradictory., as the concepts are incompatible.

Moving the idea of bitcoin to the maximum, if bitocin would ever become the world currency, well-fare/socialists policies would be doomed. Governments wouldn't be able to do those policies anymore, as they wouldn't be able to print more money or control the monetary system. The whole Keynesianism would be an idea of the past.

[Fundamentals Of]

Lest you think this is Satoshi's own words, this message was just taken from The Time's headline on January 3, 2009.

This was satoshi nakamoto quoting the Time's healine when he launched bitcoin main net. It is an open criticism against government spending generating inflation and abusing people's lack of control over the monetary system

Exactly. This was a quote.

I don't think Satoshi is against government spending per se. Satoshi is certainly against the government's failure to look after the people.

This is wrong.
Satoshi was a cypher punk, and cypher punks are anarchists. Bitcoin is great blow to governments control over the monetary system.
Those concepts are inherently incompatible with socialism, welfare status, etc.

Socialism/wellfare bitcoiner is contradictory., as the concepts are incompatible.

I'd rather not conclude that Satoshi was a cypherpunk. Neither would I assume that a cypherpunk is automatically an anarchist.

The creation of Bitcoin was not for Satoshi's personal use. Neither was Bitcoin created for Satoshi's family or small circle of friends. Bitcoin was precisely created as an option for the people.

Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin so that he will have his personal freedom. Bitcoin was created precisely so that the people are unshackled from the current abusive system. I would interpret this as an act for the people, for their welfare, for the greater good.

[minairia3]

However, I m sure to recall a quote from Satoshi stating Bitcoin is digital gold which was used several years ago in the debate of Bitcoin vs Bitcoin cash as an argument that Bitcoin is a store of value and not a meant of payment.
I m failing to find it again. The only thing I found is about Bitcoin mining, but this isn t in the meaning I need to prove.

I suddenly checked the bitcoin whitepaper and even the post of satoshi. But really not able to find this debate. Maybe you just read it somewhere and the person mentioned it is not satoshi.

Much better if you ask him directly or message him and asked about his stand on your statement about bitcoin comparable to gold. Im sure he can give you a feedback when his not busy around.

[ytrezq]

However, I m sure to recall a quote from Satoshi stating Bitcoin is digital gold which was used several years ago in the debate of Bitcoin vs Bitcoin cash as an argument that Bitcoin is a store of value and not a meant of payment.
I m failing to find it again. The only thing I found is about Bitcoin mining, but this isn t in the meaning I need to prove.

I suddenly checked the bitcoin whitepaper and even the post of satoshi. But really not able to find this debate. Maybe you just read it somewhere and the person mentioned it is not satoshi.

Much better if you ask him directly or message him and asked about his stand on your statement about bitcoin comparable to gold. Im sure he can give you a feedback when his not busy around.

It was in a blog post. But I don t even remember where or the quote content.

[Yaunfitda]

However, I m sure to recall a quote from Satoshi stating Bitcoin is digital gold which was used several years ago in the debate of Bitcoin vs Bitcoin cash as an argument that Bitcoin is a store of value and not a meant of payment.
I m failing to find it again. The only thing I found is about Bitcoin mining, but this isn t in the meaning I need to prove.

I suddenly checked the bitcoin whitepaper and even the post of satoshi. But really not able to find this debate. Maybe you just read it somewhere and the person mentioned it is not satoshi.

Much better if you ask him directly or message him and asked about his stand on your statement about bitcoin comparable to gold. Im sure he can give you a feedback when his not busy around.

It was in a blog post. But I don t even remember where or the quote content.

Maybe in this blog posts?

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/quotes/bitcoin-economics/

You can even read it there that bitcoin is being compared to shares of stocks.

[ytrezq]

However, I m sure to recall a quote from Satoshi stating Bitcoin is digital gold which was used several years ago in the debate of Bitcoin vs Bitcoin cash as an argument that Bitcoin is a store of value and not a meant of payment.
I m failing to find it again. The only thing I found is about Bitcoin mining, but this isn t in the meaning I need to prove.

I suddenly checked the bitcoin whitepaper and even the post of satoshi. But really not able to find this debate. Maybe you just read it somewhere and the person mentioned it is not satoshi.

Much better if you ask him directly or message him and asked about his stand on your statement about bitcoin comparable to gold. Im sure he can give you a feedback when his not busy around.

It was in a blog post. But I don t even remember where or the quote content.

Maybe in this blog posts?

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/quotes/bitcoin-economics/

You can even read it there that bitcoin is being compared to shares of stocks.

No the quote was made in a blog post or article stating that because Satoshi stated Bitcoin is digital gold,  used as an argument that Bitcoin was a store of value.

[Vatimins]

     You know what op, I really do not think that it matters that much to prove anything. Creation of bitcoin is good enough already, too bad though, satoshi couldn't stand with it and left it together with the responsibilities to other people. But despite so, the fact that he created bitcoin is enough reason to admire him and respect his decisions and views.

     And as what I remember in reading some of the words of satoshi, I never once seen or understood a sense of hate for the government itself. I mean, if any, I think he meant the taxes or the manipulation made by some governments or its officials for this reason. Bitcoin's creation, the way I understand satoshi's words, maybe an effort to help give people another option for their assets; to give an option in which they are in control.

[BrewMaster]

i don't think Satoshi has ever compared bitcoin with anything. there are only hints at other payment systems just to say how they work rather than compare bitcoin with them, there were also hints at gold just because people kept talking about it and the term "mining" and the "limited supply" obviously raises such discussions.
anything else Satoshi has said were in respond to someone. for example someone may have compared it with gold and Satoshi made a comment on that.
the examples posted above are also this way.

[ytrezq]

Why compare? Bitcoin is a unique asset. Gold, too. Why compare them to each other?

Because someone is arguing the scarcity of the Bitcoin is not on purpose and thus Bitcoin was never designed to replace fiat one day.